Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:24:58 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r302135 - in head/devel: . lockfree-malloc Message-ID: <20120807012458.GB25854@server.rulingia.com> In-Reply-To: <201208052051.q75Kpl6E025458@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201208052051.q75Kpl6E025458@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--O5XBE6gyVG5Rl6Rj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-Aug-05 20:51:47 +0000, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> wrote: >Log: > lockfree-malloc is a scalable drop-in replacement for malloc/free. > =20 > * It's thread-friendly. It supports a practically-unlimited number of > concurrent threads, without locking or performance degradation. > * It's efficient, especially in a multi-threaded environment. Compared to > a stock libc allocator, we see a significant performance boost. > * It does NOT fragment or leak memory, unlike a stock libc allocator. > * It wastes less memory. For small objects (less than 8kb in size), the > overhead is around 0 bytes. (!) Are these claims relative to the FreeBSD base malloc (jemalloc) or some other malloc (presumably the one in glibc)? I suspect the latter but as currently written, it implies they are shortcomings in the former. --=20 Peter Jeremy --O5XBE6gyVG5Rl6Rj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEUEARECAAYFAlAgbmoACgkQ/opHv/APuIf6OgCgpRmgnF9aPHXFfaWhOjxJbgZd r+IAmIqbrpOJdomubr9p8lEnMjZdpXs= =/Xtq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --O5XBE6gyVG5Rl6Rj--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120807012458.GB25854>